Cyber-tech Companies and Public Mind Control

  • Amir ForouharfarEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_3889-1
  • 7 Downloads

Synonyms

Definition

Public mind control is applying mass instruments and techniques in order to nudge the collective mind of a target nation, community, or group of people toward the manipulators’ desirable direction or objective.

Introduction

While Carpignano et al. ( 1990) and the other mass media scholars in the 1990s and before were blaming television as having a corrupting and degenerating nature for the public mind, they were hardly assuming that the former unidirectional impacting and shaping the public mind will change to a more sophisticated interactive situation, where the cyber-media and companies could receive even the most hidden intentions and aspects of public mind and access an influential medium via the stupendous public data to make the public cyber-hegemony of our era....
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Allcott H, Gentzkow M (2017) Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. J Econ Perspect 31(2):211–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allcott H, Gentzkow M, Yu C (2018) Trends in the diffusion of misinformation on social media. Preprint. https://web.stanford.edu/~gentzkow/research/fake-news-trends.pdf
  3. Barbero M, Coutuer J, Jackers R, Moueddene K, Renders E, Stevens W, Toninato Y, van der Peijl V, Versteele D (2016) Big data analytics for policy making, Deloitte report for the European Union. https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/document/2016-07/dg_digit_study_big_data_analytics_for_policy_making.pdf
  4. Carpignano P, Andersen R, Aronowitz S, DiFazio W (1990) Chatter in the age of electronic reproduction: talk television and the “public mind”. Social Text 25/26: 33–55. https://www.jstor.org/stable/466239?seq=1.  https://doi.org/10.2307/466239
  5. Choi H, Varian H (2012) Predicting the present with Google Trends. Econ Rec 88:2–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chomsky N, Barsamian D (2001) Propaganda and the public mind. South End Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  7. Daniels J (2009) Cloaked websites: propaganda, cyber-racism and epistemology in the digital era. New Media Soc 11(5):659–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Mauro A, Greco M, Grimaldi M (2015, February) What is big data? A consensual definition and a review of key research topics. In: AIP conference proceedings, vol 1644, No 1. AIP, pp 97–104Google Scholar
  9. Demchenko Y, Grosso P, De Laat C, Membrey P (2013, May) Addressing big data issues in scientific data infrastructure. In: Collaboration technologies and systems (CTS), 2013 international conference on IEEE, pp 48–55Google Scholar
  10. Epstein R (2015) How Google could rig the 2016 election: Google has the ability to drive millions of votes to a candidate with no one the wiser. Politico MagazineGoogle Scholar
  11. Epstein R, Robertson RE (2015) The search engine manipulation effect (SEME) and its possible impact on the outcomes of elections. Proc Natl Acad Sci 112(33):E4512–E4521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Epstein R, Robertson RE, Lazer D, Wilson C (2017) Suppressing the search engine manipulation effect (SEME). Proc ACM Hum Comput Interact 1(2):42Google Scholar
  13. Farkas J, Schou J, Neumayer C (2018) Cloaked Facebook pages: exploring fake Islamist propaganda in social media. New Media Soc 20(5):1850–1867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gramlich J (2017) Q & A: using Google search data to study public interest in the Flint water crisis. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/27/flint-water-crisis-study-qa/
  15. Granell A, Carlsson F (2018) How Google search trends can be used as technical indicators for the S&P500-index: a time series analysis using Granger’s causality test. Royal Institute of Technology, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  16. Guess A, Nyhan B, Reifler J (2018) Selective exposure to misinformation: evidence from the consumption of fake news during the 2016 US presidential campaign. Working paper. European Research Council. https://www.dartmouth.edu/∼nyhan/fake-news-2016.pdf. Accessed 3 Sept 2018
  17. Jahedi S, Wenger JW, Yeung D (2016) Searching for information online: using big data to identify the concerns of potential Army recruits. RAND Corporation-Arroyo Center, Santa MonicaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kaisler S, Armour F, Espinosa JA, Money W (2013) Big data: issues and challenges moving forward. In: System sciences (HICSS), 2013 46th Hawaii international conference on IEEE, pp 995–1004Google Scholar
  19. Kristoufek L, Moat HS, Preis T (2016) Estimating suicide occurrence statistics using Google Trends. EPJ Data Sci 5(1):32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kulpati S (2018) How technology subconsciously manipulates your vote. The Startup. https://medium.com/swlh/5-sinister-ways-technology-subconsciously-manipulates-your-vote-17bbe45b1ffb
  21. Lichtman R (2013) The violent disorder of our public mind. https://truthout.org/articles/the-violent-disorder-of-our-public-mind/
  22. O’Connell A (2010) Reading the public mind. Harv Bus Rev 88(10):27. https://hbr.org/2010/10/reading-the-public-mindGoogle Scholar
  23. Pardy N (2013) Cloaked websites: the dark side of digital media. http://tuftsobserver.org/cloaked-websites-the-dark-side-of-digital-media/
  24. Pasick A, Fernholz T (2015) The groundwork: the stealthy, Eric Schmidt-backed startup that’s working to put Hillary Clinton in the White House. https://qz.com/520652/groundwork-eric-schmidt-startup-working-for-hillary-clinton-campaign/
  25. Perlin MS, Caldeira JF, Santos AA, Pontuschka M (2017) Can we predict the financial markets based on Google’s search queries? J Forecast 36(4):454–467Google Scholar
  26. Preis T, Moat HS, Stanley HE, Bishop SR (2012) Quantifying the advantage of looking forward. Sci Rep 2:350. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep00350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Preis T, Moat HS, Stanley HE (2013) Quantifying trading behavior in financial markets using Google Trends. Sci Rep 3:1684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rule JB (2013) The search engine, for better or for worse. The New York Times, 18 Mar. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/19/opinion/global/the-search-engine-for-better-or-for-worse.html
  29. Shafi A, Vultee F (2016) One of many tools to win the election: a study of Facebook posts by presidential candidates in the 2012 election. In: (R) evolutionizing political communication through social media. IGI Global, Hershey, Pennsylvania, USA. pp 210–228.  https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-9879-6.ch011
  30. Shultz D (2015) Internet search engines may be influencing elections. Science. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/08/internet-search-engines-may-be-influencing-elections
  31. Stephens-Davidowitz (2012) How racist are we? Ask Google. https://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/09/how-racist-are-we-ask-google/
  32. The New York Times (2018a) Russian hacking and influence in the U.S. Election. https://www.nytimes.com/news-event/russian-election-hacking
  33. The New York Times (2018b) Russian trolls came for Instagram, Too. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/technology/russian-interference-instagram.html
  34. Veltri G (2013) Microblogging and nanotweets: nanotechnology on Twitter. Public Underst Sci 22(7):832–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vlatković S (2018) New communication forms and political framing: Twitter in Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. AM J Art Media Stud 16:123–134.  https://doi.org/10.25038/am.v0i16.259
  36. Yalçın N, Köse U (2010) What is search engine optimization: SEO? Procedia Soc Behav Sci 9:487–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Public AdministrationUniversity of Sistan and BaluchestanZahedanIran